I.Approval of
Minutes of November 29, 2010:The
minutes were approved as distributed.

II.Announcements

Director Andrea Bartoli will offer
brief remarks at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Legislative Update:Provost Stearns reported
encouraging news from the legislative staff in the House of Delegates that
budget legislation will include aurthorization to renegotiate our peer
institutions list with SCHEV, to include COLA..While no moneyis immedately
available, should GMU’s percentage ranking go way down, pretty good
assurance.He saluted the efforts
ofFaculty Senators and Morrie Scherrens
on the COLA issue.The EXC concurred
that this development positions us much more strongly.The Provost added that current prospects are
that $23 million for (higher education) progrm support will be carved up over
the next few weeks.If prorated, GMU
could receive $2.3 million, outcome pending.

A.Academic Policies – Janette Muir

Graduate
Council By Laws Revisions:Met with Michelle Marks (Associate Provost for Graduate Education) to
discuss the role of the AP committee in the grad council.Since the bylaws for the council have just
been revised, we agreed to spend this year look at the relationship between the
two entities. A member of the AP Committee will sit on the Graduate Council,
and Michelle will come to a future meeting to discuss the kinds of issues that
the council addresses. Apparently, there is miniscule work that impact catalog
copy changes. The main point is that we are establishing ways to work
together.

AP/IB
Credits:There was a meeting
in early January attended by twenty people (academic associate deans and other
administrators) to look more at nondegree dual enrollment issues. All
nontraditional credits were put on the table for discussion. Everyone agreed
not to change the amount of AP/IB credit that students bring into Mason.Other issues discussed included how to
distinguish between Freshmen/Sophomore/Junior/Senior credits.Also to explore matriculation with NOVA. And,
to continue discussing the issues with Governor’s School credits.

Guest
Matriculations -- No closer to resolution with Governor’s School credit,
agreement to continue discussion.In
response to a question raised, Janette confirmed there is no agreement about
dual enrollment and the committee will continue discussion with other involved
parties.

Academic
Calendar – suggestion made to start classes earlier in January:feedback received from the Registrar, prior
minutes, and we are reviewing data and reports from 2001, 2006.This is not an item for the agenda yet. In
response to a question raised, the exam schedule will remain as is.In a general discussion, some committee
members recalled long ago there was once a break between commencement and
summer school.When folks register for
summer school in advance and subsequently learn they passed a course, then
cancel summer school registration, causing enormous changes to enrollment.Janette will find out when the break
occurred.Other committee members
appreciate the extra week in January (before classes start) to get work done.The idea of a “January term” or “J-Mester”
was floated.While not bad to look at
it, costs unknown, to include costs to operate dorms in cold weather.Unknown what tradeoff would be, but would fit
into Governor’s proposal for more efficient use of space.The AP Committee will further discuss the
issue.

B.Budget and Resources – June Tangney

In a general discussion,
suggestions made to facilitate meetings included use of email and/or setting up
an organization within Blackboard.

Deans/Directors survey of faculty work in independent
study/directed readings/dissertations: Howis
work acknowledged/credit determined/appear in review process? Tuition
cost-sharing of university-level teaching?The Committee will contact the Registrar’s Office for data and Meg will
send June a report from AY 2004-05 which addressed similar issues.The Committee may draft a letter to all
department chairs asking whether they consider this in faculty
evaluations/promotion./tenure decisions.

Extramural Funding Study—2011 – pending meeting of the Committee.

Salary Data 2011 was just received today.

BPT Meetings are very instructive.Impressed with how carefully General Education Funds are tracked, but
saw no tracking of extramural funding as a major issue.Provost Stearns disagreed, adding that
information sent out in which there is clear tracking of indirect
expenditures.The committee received
some information from Morrie Scherrens and needs a more detailed accounting.

Changes to VRS/ORP Retirement
Plans Proposed:An email from the Chair of the FSVA asking Faculty Senators
to contact their state legislators was distributed to Faculty Senators.Peter Pober contacted Linda Harber, who was
hesitant because some information in the FSVA letter was not 100% accurate,
looking for additional information.Also
numerous pieces of legislation bandied about in Richmond.Original ORP presumption was not true, that
input reduced by 1.9% reductin, but a different strategy than VRS.We will ask Linda for the most
semming/realistic assessmentto
distribute to faculty asking them to contact their state legislators.

C.Faculty Matters– Doris Bitler

Faculty Evaluation of
Administrators Survey will be distributed
soon.

Review of Consensual
Relationships Policy presented at October
6, 2010 FS Meeting:We have received the
original and updated version and are reviewing them.

Voluntary Practice Plan:An amended resolution will be included on
the next FS meeting agenda..The
previous motion was presented in Doris’ absence at the Dec. 8th meeting by Star
Muir.

On-Line Teaching Evaluations:Introduced by the Faculty Matters Committee
at the Dec. 8th FS Meeting, the chair of the Effective Teaching Committee’s
remarks indicated that they should take the lead on this.The EXC agreed that Faculty Matters should
shift the responsibility for on-line evaluations to Effective Teaching Doris
will speak to Paula Petrik about this, with the proviso that their
recommendations be presented to the FS.In a general discussion, concern expressed responses have dropped from
85-87% (paper evaluations) to less than 33% (on-line evaluations), says we’re
not getting feedback.Also financial
considerations with you look at the low number of on-line evaluations received
– drawing conclusions based on a smaller sample.

D.Nominations – Jim Bennett

Faculty Representatives to the BOV Elections:we will ask for nominations/.bios in late
February, to allow three weeks for response, then distribute ballots right
after spring break, with two three weeks response.

Nominees for theproposed Senate Task Force to
Examine the Agreements between George Mason University and Private Donors are
Bob Ehrlich (COS), Esther Elstun (CHSS-Emerita), Dave Kuebrich (CHSS),
Earle Reybold (CEHD), and Rich Rubenstein (ICAR).We will contact Paula Petrik (Effective
Teaching Chair) to nominate a representative from their committee to the
Distance Education Council.

E.Organization and Operations – Star Muir

Motion to Create a Senate Task Force to Examine the
Agreements between George Mason University and Private Donors (Attachment A)

After some discussion, the
O&O Committee and the EXC agreed not to fine-tweak this and let the FS chew
on it.A member of the O&O Committee
expressed reservations about it as follows:

“I am in favor of such a Task Force if it operates
with great transparency and objectivity. I am NOT in favor of it should
it become a witch hunt for unpopular funding (e.g. Koch
brothers/Mercatus). Frankly, I think the first order of business should
be to determine if the policies currently in place protect the objectivity and
quality of the research and teaching at the university are working and
sufficient. If a committee with that task needed to examine
specific agreements with funders, then that would be part of their work.
But I would rather have a Senate committee that focused on the general principles
of ethics and quality control on sponsored research and gifts/grants than a
Task Force that ONLY examines agreements between GMU and Private Donors.
For example -- what about gifts from foreign countries (Like the Confucius
Center)? I worry that the current phrasing seems aimed at attacking
corporate/private donors with conservative agendas, and such an approach will
hurt, not help, the University. So I would, in the end, say that I
oppose the motion as it is now framed.”

Revision of FS Charter and By-Laws: Wedecided not to go through the entire process
of revising the charter for bookkeeping issues.Have contacted two other parliamentarians to ask their opinion whether a
resolution could be used to address inconsistencies in the charter, such as
mixing up of titles, etc.

Committee Charge for Recreation Advisory Committee-to
include in agenda as previously omitted.To verify with Jim Sanford the names of faculty representatives now
serving.

IV.Other Committees/Faculty
Representatives

Academic Initiatives Committee:Fall 2010 Report received.Committee very antagonistic toward discussion
about initiatives.Now that the VP for
Global and International Strategies is inplace, wish to amend committee charge to include VP as a member, among
other changes.The EXC will invite Anne
Schiller and Thomas Speller (Chair of AI Committee) to a future FS
Meeting.

Faculty Reps/BOV:

·Faculty Qualtiy of Life Survey: to move
forward what can be done at BOV meetings.

·Criteria BOV uses to review the President:Peter Pober
received four very general statements, move to consider a more concrete set of
guidelines on the radar.

·Election of Faculty Reps to serve on
Presidential Search Committee – Five elected
reps plus chair of Faculty Senate.To have
elections during Fall 2011, Committee will begin Spring 2012

Task Force on Speech Code (University Space and
Expressions Committee) has received no response yet from the University Counsel
on its recommendations, examining similar codes at other Virginia
universities.To contact Tom Moncure
about delay.The Committee met in spring
2010.

Technology Policy Committee to examine whether
additional fees should be charged for distance education courses.The Provost confirmed we are charging fees
for distance courses.Star Muir will ask
Goodlett McDaniel (AssociateProvost for
Distance Education) for more information about the Distance Education Council,
which has not been formally constituted.

V.Agenda
Items for February 9, 2011

Brief remarks – Director Andrea Bartoli –
ICAR

Resolution on Voluntary Faculty Practice
Plan – Faculty Matters

Motion to Create a
Senate Task Force to Examine the Agreements between George Mason
University and Private Donors-
O&O

Recreation Advisory
Committee Charge – O&O

VI.New Business and Discussion

Faculty Evaluation of Administrators Surveys posted on line –
concern expressed that a disservice to make widely availableto the world, to limit access to faculty
– to put behind (portal) similar to salary data, accessible only to
faculty.

Revision
of University Class Schedule:Impact of Fewer Classrooms/Insufficient Supply of Electronic
Classrooms:Town Hall delayed by
inclement weather.5 classrooms
delayed, 15 will be back on line, still looking at some construction
projects , to ask Sharon Pitt about status.

Three
questions to ask the Registrar (1) faculty auditing a course whether need
to be admitted as students (2) whether faculty who work here but live in
Maryland are charged in-state or out-of-state tuition? (3)can foreign graduate students be charged
in-state tuition if they earn over $1000.here?

Respectfully
submitted,

Meg
Caniano

Faculty
Senate clerk

ATTACHMENT A

Motion to Create a
Senate Task Force to Examine the Agreements between George Mason University and
Private Donors

Motion: The George Mason University Faculty Senate
shall create a fact-finding “Task Force re Private Donors” (TFPD). The charge
of the Task Force will be to review significant agreements the University that
have an overt intellectual dimension.The activities of the Task Force shall include examining the impact of
these agreements in regard to A) the teaching and research missions of the
University; B) the University’s mission to serve the public good; C) the
University’s use of resources; and D) the image of the University--as perceived
both by the George Mason community and the larger public.

Composition: The task force will consist of five
faculty members elected by the Faculty Senate and one non-voting ex officio
member appointed by the Provost.

Schedule: The
Task Force will make a preliminary report to the Senate by the end of the
Spring semester and a second report early in the Fall semester. In its fall
report, the Task Force will recommend either that it be dissolved or that it
continue in order to develop and recommend needed changes in University policy.

Rationale:Such
a task force is needed for various reasons:

1. Quality of Leadership: George Mason University often
expresses a desire to be a model university for the twenty-first century. Such
aspirations to innovation and leadership must include high ethical standards.

2. Current Ethical and Political Concerns: There is growing
concern both within higher education and among the general public about
conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in the scholarship, public
presentations, and official testimony of university professors and researchers.
This concern is expressed in, among other places, a recent New Yorker article that included discussion of GMU’s Mercatus
Center (Aug 30, 2010); the film Inside
Job, a recently-released documentary on the current economic crisis; and
the Nov-Dec, 2010 issue of Academe: The Magazine of the American Association of
University Professors, entitled “The Conflicted University,” which
discusses how monied interests use donations, political clout, and legal muscle
to influence research, scholarship and teaching.

3. Right to Know: Faculty, students, and other members of
the George Mason community have a right to know about agreements that are made
between the University and private interest groups.

4. Right to Know: Taxpayers also have a right to know about
these agreements.

5. Right to Know: Before the Faculty Senate (12/8/2010),
President Merten stated that the University has existing conflict-of-interest
policies that require all faculty and researchers to reveal sources of funding
that might influence their work. He also stated that the University receives
funding from groups across the political spectrum that seek to influence public
policy.Since these facts are not widely
known, they should be reviewed and given greater visibility.

6. The mission of the public university is to serve the
common good as a disinterested center of teaching and research. It is vital to
the well-being of public higher education that this understanding of the public
university be preserved.